Stasi Raid Mar-a-Lago

[CivilDiscourse]

Reasonably authoritative sources seemed to be repeating it, so it seems fine for other journalists to put some level of trust in those sources. It's not a claim that has huge consequences if wrong so it doesn't necessarily need above-usual scrutiny. So I'd go with neither incompetent nor lying. Unlike when right-wing media circulated the photoshopped picture of the judge as Jeffrey Epstein which was a fairly high level of incompetence given it looked photoshopped and had a meme generators name on it and was a much more damaging claim about the judge hence requiring a higher level of scrutiny that they didn't do... which seems fairly common for them... I recall the BLM protests where Fox News was caught photoshopping a black man holding a gun into lots of their BLM protest pictures in order to frighten their racist and cowardly audience.

LOL. Of course they haven't.

They're against a foreign country playing politics in US elections, but they think a US political party should be able to play politics in US elections? Say it ain't so! Obviously US political parties should stay out of US elections!

Because it's obvious how someone would make such a mistake and a sufficiently unimportant claim not to be worth much time checking and rechecking.

A primary is an election of one particular parties nominee. What legitimate reason do the democrats have to be meddling in the republican primary?

Of course, in another betrayal of the values they claim: They have said trump and his ilk are a very large threat to the US democracy. But, these are the same people they have been propping up in their meddling. So, they are willing to threaten US democracy because they think doing so will help them win the election.

That's also how we got Trump by the way. Hillary made him a "pied piper" candidate, tried to keep him in the front of the pack to draw out the extremists....it worked. SO, to do it AGAIN and AGAIN....

[Starlight]

Of course, in another betrayal of the values they claim: They have said trump and his ilk are a very large threat to the US democracy. But, these are the same people they have been propping up in their meddling. So, they are willing to threaten US democracy because they think doing so will help them win the election.

They are doing it in races where they believe the candidates will lose in the general election. So if their beliefs are accurate their actions are rational given them.

You can argue that they're not sufficiently factoring in the risks involved with regard to some of their beliefs possibly being wrong, but that's a subjective judgement call not an objective fact. I'd in turn argue that both you and they are wrongly assuming that they have significant power to affect the outcome of the Republican primaries, and that since they don't have much power to do so that this topic doesn't matter.

That's also how we got Trump by the way. Hillary made him a "pied piper" candidate, tried to keep him in the front of the pack to draw out the extremists....it worked. SO, to do it AGAIN and AGAIN....

Sure, that was her strategy. I tend to presume it was irrelevant since I think Trump would have won the Republican primary even if Hillary's people had opposed him from the start.

[Mountain Man]

It seems the FBI may have taken numerous documents that are protected by attorney/client privilege.

[CivilDiscourse]

They are doing it in races where they believe the candidates will lose in the general election. So if their beliefs are accurate their actions are rational given them.

You can argue that they're not sufficiently factoring in the risks involved with regard to some of their beliefs possibly being wrong, but that's a subjective judgement call not an objective fact. I'd in turn argue that both you and they are wrongly assuming that they have significant power to affect the outcome of the Republican primaries, and that since they don't have much power to do so that this topic doesn't matter.

Sure, that was her strategy. I tend to presume it was irrelevant since I think Trump would have won the Republican primary even if Hillary's people had opposed him from the start.

To be more accurate they are doing it in races where they believe that it gives their candidates a BETTER CHANCE at winning in the general election. This means of course that they are CHOOSING TO RISK OUR DEMOCRACY for a BETTER CHANCE at winning.

[Starlight]

To be more accurate they are doing it in races where they believe that it gives their candidates a BETTER CHANCE at winning in the general election. This means of course that they are CHOOSING TO RISK OUR DEMOCRACY for a BETTER CHANCE at winning.

I think you're wrongly assuming that a single such candidate getting elected is a risk to US democracy. The risk to US democracy is thought to be the Trump / Republican-extremist movement as a general whole because of its enthusiasm for doing things like storming the capitol and creating a nationwide narrative of election fraud. Some small handful of nutty congresspeople getting elected isn't going to affect that much - we already have Margarine Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert in office.

The Dems running the strategy of trying to influence Republican primaries don't believe that misjudging a congressional district and causing one nut to be elected to congress will end US democracy, so they don't view themselves as playing with fire the way you seem to. I would however be surprised if they tried running the same strategy as Hillary last time to help Trump himself in the primaries - because I think they would see Trump himself as a threat to US democracy the way they wouldn't see a single congressperson as.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think you're wrongly assuming that a single such candidate getting elected is a risk to US democracy. The risk to US democracy is thought to be the Trump / Republican-extremist movement as a general whole because of its enthusiasm for doing things like storming the capitol and creating a nationwide narrative of election fraud. Some small handful of nutty congresspeople getting elected isn't going to affect that much - we already have Margarine Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert in office.

The Dems running the strategy of trying to influence Republican primaries don't believe that misjudging a congressional district and causing one nut to be elected to congress will end US democracy, so they don't view themselves as playing with fire the way you seem to. I would however be surprised if they tried running the same strategy as Hillary last time to help Trump himself in the primaries - because I think they would see Trump himself as a threat to US democracy the way they wouldn't see a single congressperson as.

So, you think supporting election deniers is fine then, so long as not too many of them get elected?

[Starlight]

So, you think supporting election deniers is fine then, so long as not too many of them get elected?

I think using the word "supporting" is wrong in the context. They're not supporting these people, they're encouraging them to damage their own party.

Why is this such a big issue for you? Do you work in politics and are involved in a race where your preferred Republican candidate is losing to a crazier person due to Dem interference? It's a eyeroll and shrug issue IMO but you seem to be taking it really personally and seriously.

[CivilDiscourse]

I think using the word "supporting" is wrong in the context. They're not supporting these people, they're encouraging them to damage their own party.

Why is this such a big issue for you? Do you work in politics and are involved in a race where your preferred Republican candidate is losing to a crazier person due to Dem interference? It's a eyeroll and shrug issue IMO but you seem to be taking it really personally and seriously.

No, they are supporting them. Your attempts at deflection not-withstanding. I highlight it because it is an example of democrats abandoning claimed values in pursuit of power. And of course, it shows that you too will bend over backwards to support them, regardless of what they do.

[rogue06]

A primary is an election of one particular parties nominee. What legitimate reason do the democrats have to be meddling in the republican primary?

Of course, in another betrayal of the values they claim: They have said trump and his ilk are a very large threat to the US democracy. But, these are the same people they have been propping up in their meddling. So, they are willing to threaten US democracy because they think doing so will help them win the election.

That's also how we got Trump by the way. Hillary made him a "pied piper" candidate, tried to keep him in the front of the pack to draw out the extremists....it worked. SO, to do it AGAIN and AGAIN....

It isn't just the interference in Republican primaries. The Democrats revealed that their cry of make every vote count is B.S. rhetoric that they don't believe in. They showed this when they rigged their primary system so that Hillary would be the nominee in 2016 regardless who the rank and file Democrats voted for. In a number of states they set it up so that she would get the most delegates no matter who got the most votes.

And then there were the debates.

The DNC, which Hillary had bought and paid for, turned the questions to be asked in the debates over to her well in advance so that she would have a chance to craft an answer before the actual debate. Ironically even with that massive advantage she didn't do all that well in them.

[Starlight]

No, they are supporting them. Your attempts at deflection not-withstanding. I highlight it because it is an example of democrats abandoning claimed values in pursuit of power. And of course, it shows that you too will bend over backwards to support them, regardless of what they do.

I would like all the existing Dem strategists, including the ones that came up with this strategy, fired. I don't support them. I think this strategy is a waste of money. I don't think it's an example of abandoning claimed values though.

[CivilDiscourse]

I would like all the existing Dem strategists, including the ones that came up with this strategy, fired. I don't support them. I think this strategy is a waste of money. I don't think it's an example of abandoning claimed values though.

You don't think meddling in another party's election is abandoning the value of not meddling in others elections. You don't think propping up election deniers is abandoning the value of denying the election being dangerous for the country and it's democracy?

Do you think supporting a Klan member would not be abandoning the value of supporting blacks?

[Ronson]

To be fair, we only know that because unnamed sources told the NYT and CNN.

I think that makes it pretty reliable information, but many people don't.

Thank you. I was just trying to clear that up. We haven't "observed" much of anything, except what we've read and what people have said.

Since Top Secret documents are listed on the receipt, and Trump claims he declassified them, that one's a little harder to question.

True. But the receipt was written by some unknown person using some unknown criteria. Did the papers actually say "top secret" on them or does he/she assume that from what little was read?

Yes, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt as much as possible because he has been lied about soooooo many times in the past.

[Starlight]

The Democrats revealed that their cry of make every vote count is B.S. rhetoric that they don't believe in.

You're confusing primaries and generals here and they're quite different with regard to how things commonly work. Different parties around the Western world have all sorts of different methods of selecting their primary candidates, and they are commonly some combination of party-authority-figures, special interests (e.g. unions), and party-affiliated voters all voting. Dems are very little different to many other parties across the Western world in that regard.

It's the general elections where it's crucial for democracy that every vote counts. There's probably very few people more supportive than I personally am of every person's vote counting and counting equally in the general election. I believe voting should be compulsory (i.e. the person must submit a ballot, but can choose to leave it blank or draw a smiley face on it), and I believe that no one should be excluded from voting (e.g. due to being a criminal etc), and I believe the voting age should be lowered so that anyone who can fill out a ballot themselves can vote, and I believe it's crucial that the voting system give outcomes that are strongly proportional to the votes. I think every vote should be cast and every vote should count and count equally. The only voters I would exclude would be non-citizens, because in my observation non-citizens can be more loyal to their country of origin than their country of residency... but I'll admit that's controversial cos you could argue "no taxation without representation" applies and therefore non-citizen residents should be able to vote.

But that's in the general election. I could generally not care less how specific parties select their candidates, and I'm aware of all sorts of different methods different parties use for that process in my own country, in the US, and in other countries. Pretty much the only primary races I've ever followed in my life in any country have been US presidential election primaries, solely because the US presidency puts such an outsized and absurd amount of power in the hands of a single person due to being such a stupid system, so it's vastly more important than any other races as to who the parties' nominees are. And yes, it absolutely annoyed me that the Dem party powerfuls supported Hillary over Bernie, and Hillary's loss shows how wrong they were to do so. But your inherent claim is that beliefs about how a general election should run ought of necessity and consistency apply to a primary race, and that's just false. The Dem party, like other parties in the world, can organize their candidate selection process however they want.

The DNC, which Hillary had bought and paid for, turned the questions to be asked in the debates over to her well in advance so that she would have a chance to craft an answer before the actual debate. Ironically even with that massive advantage she didn't do all that well in them.

I recall the scandal as Hillary being fed a single question. Were there others?

[Ronson]

I didn't realize how Leftist this scam is. They have everyone represented: Female, male, sex indiscriminate, black, and a tall guy.

tiki.jpg

[CivilDiscourse]

The Dem party, like other parties in the world, can organize their candidate selection process however they want.

They can. BUT, if they say that every vote should count, then it would be abandoning their values to run their process in a way that every vote doesn't count. Sort of like saying "get dark money out of politics" and then raising more in dark money that the other party.